Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => Applications => Topic started by: a1mck on 6 January 2007, 11:03
-
Hi everyone,
I just went onto the Nero site, and I was pleasantly surprised to find out that they've finally released the Nero burning software for Linux!!!
This is one of the main programs that I use, and now it's just one more thing that keeps me moving towards Linux!
Anyway, maybe you guys already know about it, but it sure is big news to me.
Take care,
a1mck
http://www.nero.com//enu/NeroLINUX_Info_Page.html (http://www.nero.com//enu/NeroLINUX_Info_Page.html)
-
cool.
(http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/7573/linuxnerotw1.th.jpg) (http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=linuxnerotw1.jpg)
-
Excellent. Nero always had there own dlls in Windows, and the Linux version has its own aspi layer. That will reduce system security some, but it offers an opportunity for others to use that apsi layer for other programs.
-
Wow, I've always used K3b (http://www.k3b.org) for my burning needs because of its sheer openness. I guess Nero wins, though - please, Ahead, rape me with your infinite wisdom and proprietary knowledge!
Bah.
-
I can see some GNU fanboys being annoyed about another piece of proprietary software further polluting their free platform but if it increases the number of people using it then it can only be a good thing.
-
I must admit that my own feelings on this issue are somewhat divided. Having people try something new is always a Good Thing(tm), but they should at least do it for the right reasons. As much as I hate to say this, one company porting their software to Linux then inevitably claiming it's "new and innovative" when another, IMO better solution has existed for the past eight years is disingenuous at best.
Bottom line: People should switch to Linux because they want freedom, not because they want to enslave themselves on a different platform.
-
There again why should people switch to Linux for wanting freedom, why can't they switch because they prefer it to the alternatives?
-
There again why should people switch to Linux for wanting freedom, why can't they switch because they prefer it to the alternatives?
I'm not saying they shouldn't, but why prefer it if not for the freedom? ;)
My problem is that we're getting huge throngs of users that neither know nor care of the history of why Torvalds made the Linux kernel and why Stallman continues to push open-source for it. The entire platform is about freedom, both of choice and of knowledge, and attempts by corporations to port applications to it without bothering to release the source should always be seen as a failure of the model. It is, quite literally, a slap in the face to everyone that ever worked to create FOSS alternatives because the proprietary vendors were too selfish to release their source specifications in any form.
EDIT: Bottom line: Remember when MASM was around, and people could do whatever the hell they wanted with Windows? Remember what happened after that? I'll be damned if I'll stand by and let that happen to Linux, and if that means the banishment of proprietary software, then so be it.
-
I'm not saying they shouldn't, but why prefer it if not for the freedom?;)
My problem is that we're getting huge throngs of users that neither know nor care of the history of why Torvalds made the Linux kernel and why Stallman continues to push open-source for it. The entire platform is about freedom, both of choice and of knowledge, and attempts by corporations to port applications to it without bothering to release the source should always be seen as a failure of the model. It is, quite literally, a slap in the face to everyone that ever worked to create FOSS alternatives because the proprietary vendors were too selfish to release their source specifications in any form.
EDIT: Bottom line: Remember when MASM was around, and people could do whatever the hell they wanted with Windows? Remember what happened after that? I'll be damned if I'll stand by and let that happen to Linux, and if that means the banishment of proprietary software, then so be it.
you didnt end in a smiley:eek:
-
So can we do a comparison ... what can nero do that k3b can't ?
-
on a serious note the gplv3 will help but were on the right track, if sun succeeds in becoming very known after ms goes down (in <5 years) people will do as they do
-
My problem is that we're getting huge throngs of users that neither know nor care of the history of why Torvalds made the Linux kernel and why Stallman continues to push open-source for it.
That's got to happen if Linux is going to become a mainstream OS, by all means bitch about how bad Microsoft software is and that it shouldn't have the whole market in its grip but you can't have it both ways.
The entire platform is about freedom, both of choice and of knowledge, and attempts by corporations to port applications to it without bothering to release the source should always be seen as a failure of the model.
You could also argue that software developers should have the freedom to choose whatever license they want to release their software under.
This is my main issue with this and is why I hate MASM32 so much.
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10215&highlight=MASM32
It is, quite literally, a slap in the face to everyone that ever worked to create FOSS alternatives because the proprietary vendors were too selfish to release their source specifications in any form.
I can see your point that allowing proprietary software on Linux violates the key principles on which it was founded upon.
I don't agree with it, primarily because I don't agree that proprietary software is immoral or that open source software is inherently better. I don't buy into the argument that it can software vendors can make money purely from services and support (yes, this may work in the bussiness market but I fail to see how it will work in the domestic market).
I'm no GNU fanboy, piratePenguin, Calum, you and I have all discussed this before and you'll never get me to agree with you (even though I can see your points of view) so let's save ourselves 15 pages of flame. :)
EDIT: Bottom line: Remember when MASM was around, and people could do whatever the hell they wanted with Windows? Remember what happened after that? I'll be damned if I'll stand by and let that happen to Linux, and if that means the banishment of proprietary software, then so be it.
I remember MASM (it was a very horrible assembler) but I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Are you talking about dissassembly, reverse engineering, MASM32 or am I totally on the wrong wavelength?
-
I'm no GNU fanboy, piratePenguin, Calum, you and I have all discussed this before and you'll never get me to agree with you (even though I can see your points of view) so let's save ourselves 15 pages of flame.
that puts a stop to the 40 pages of stallmen essays i was about to post ;)
-
I can see some GNU fanboys being annoyed about another piece of proprietary software further polluting their free platform but if it increases the number of people using it then it can only be a good thing.
normally that gnu fanboy would be me but this is a start of a great trend, something ive been emailing macromedia and adobe to do for a while.
-
That's got to happen if Linux is going to become a mainstream OS, by all means bitch about how bad Microsoft software is and that it shouldn't have the whole market in its grip but you can't have it both ways.
Like hell I can't. Microsoft forgot their roots in Windows, especially after they "squashed" OS/2. I say "squashed" because Warp is actually still showing up in some financial institutions these days. I'm not going to let that happen to Linux, and I hope nobody else does either. If that means bitching about Microsoft until I'm blue in the face, then I'll be a constant thorn to every proprietary advocate that slithers this way. Think of me what you will, but know that I'll disregard it. ;)
You could also argue that software developers should have the freedom to choose whatever license they want to release their software under.
This is my main issue with this and is why I hate MASM32 so much.
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10215&highlight=MASM32 (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10215&highlight=MASM32)
Oh wow. I didn't mean the MASM licence. I meant MASM back when it was understood, not demanded, that the only thing it could build would be Win32 binaries. The restriction on not allowing open-source licences was a bastard move, and I hope people literally disregard that left and right. Besides, I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to restrict the licence terms of a conceptual product with a real product like that - some violation of IP copyright laws or another - but that's yet to be tested in a court of law. I suspect that clause is effective because of rampant fearmongering in jurisdictions where it may be null and void.
I can see your point that allowing proprietary software on Linux violates the key principles on which it was founded upon.
I don't agree with it, primarily because I don't agree that proprietary software is immoral or that open source software is inherently better. I don't buy into the argument that it can software vendors can make money purely from services and support (yes, this may work in the bussiness market but I fail to see how it will work in the domestic market).
I'm no GNU fanboy, piratePenguin, Calum, you and I have all discussed this before and you'll never get me to agree with you (even though I can see your points of view) so let's save ourselves 15 pages of flame. :)
Wait, you see my point? Then why deflect to the straw-man "software has morals" argument? I'd expect that you, of all people, would see the advantages in clear-box code where particularly amoral or immoral organisations may be concerned.
My major problem with proprietary software isn't that it's proprietary, believe it or not. My major problem is what's so bad about the source that the issuing company doesn't want me to see it? Would you buy a car if the hood were riveted shut? How about a house with the windows boarded up and the doors nailed closed? How can someone guarantee a quality product if you can't "wander through it" if you so desire?
I think it'd come as a huge shock were Microsoft to ever disclose their sales versus support numbers, since they charge $35 per unique issue and one of their most infamous avenues of infection is via piracy. The BSA protects them from this, you say? How many suits have they filed against individual or collective pirate groups in the past five years? How about the past decade? How many have they filed as "findings of fact" against unsatisfied corporate customers? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this. Why give our hard-won dollars to a giant money vacuum that sues its best clients, services its small-time customers (to put it in gentler terms), and restricts the inalienable right of American citizens (to say nothing of global citizens) to be secure in their liberty and property? Were some of these products to be airplanes, you can bet the FAA would be dealing with an epidemic of crashes this very moment. God forbid Windows should ever make it onto a Boeing in anything but an entertainment center.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just don't agree with the perspective you're espousing. It sounds remarkably like someone who's been gaming on a PS2 a little too long, and forgets that the Revolution and 360 are still viable options. Call me what you will, I just prefer to see the forest rather than the trees. ;)
I remember MASM (it was a very horrible assembler) but I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Are you talking about dissassembly, reverse engineering, MASM32 or am I totally on the wrong wavelength?
More reverse engineering than anything, particularly before they put that bastard clause in the licence.
-
Heh, I knew this would happen in this thread when I first saw it posted. Anyways, the only thing I liked about Nero, back when I used it, was the image burning option. I have to admit that the .nrg format is one of the better ones for ripping a disk image. And yeah, it was proprietary unlike .bin or something else, but a lot of free apps used it to load CD images anyways, and it compressed a lot better. That's how I used to rip and play PS1 games through Daemon tools.
There's no such virtual drive daemon on linux which supports it, so I'd have little need for Nero. And I'll use any of the apps on linux to burn CDs. I'm very not picky in this case. As long as the CD burns without errors I'm happy. Gnomebaker, K3b, XFburn, they've worked for me.
-
Whoooaaaaaaa!!!!
Guys, I didn't mean to start a war here....I just really like Nero, and I thought it was great that a mainstream program is being ported to Linux. Which means that Linux is finally being recognized as a viable option to Windoze.
As far as the argument about proprietary software vs open source...well, that's to the individual to decide.
I like the program, but it's the only one that I've used with Windoze that actually consistently works. I'm sure that there are lots of other ones out there for Linux, and once again, it's purely up to the individual to decide what he or she likes.
Anyway, you guys rock, and happy burnin';-)
a1mck
-
How do you know what you like until you've tried all possibilities ?
-
I'm not going to let that happen to Linux
Why do you think this will happen with Linux?
Just because masses of people who don't agree with the GNU it doesn't mean that everything will become closed source.
I don't agree that Linux should be like some sort of religion where you have to agree with a certain philosophy, if all open source software is going to be like that then give me Microsoft any day.
Wait, you see my point? Then why deflect to the straw-man "software has morals" argument?
I was under the impression that your opposition to closed source software is a morral one. Perhaps I was putting you in the same crowd as piratePinguin who often makes claims about the evilness of proprietary software; if I'm wrong then I appologise.
I'd expect that you, of all people, would see the advantages in clear-box code where particularly amoral or immoral organisations may be concerned.
I do see the advantages but of open source but I don't mandate it.
My major problem with proprietary software isn't that it's proprietary, believe it or not. My major problem is what's so bad about the source that the issuing company doesn't want me to see it?
What about sharred source software then?
Would you consider buying a piece of proprietary software that comes with source code but prohibits you from redistributing it?
Would you buy a car if the hood were riveted shut?
That's almost the case with some modern cars these days anyway, you can't tinker with them like you used to and this is why I've known poeple who prefer classic cars. Personally I don't care about modifying or tinkering with my car, providing I can do a basic service I don't care, actually I tell a lie, I normally send it to the garrage for a service, all I ever do is check the oil, water, break fluid, tires etc.
How about a house with the windows boarded up and the doors nailed closed?
That's a silly annalogy and you know it.
How can someone guarantee a quality product if you can't "wander through it" if you so desire?
But you can still only see what's on the surface.
Do you know how secure the foundations are?
Are you sure that the walls underneath all that plaster are strong enough?
Can you be certain that there are no cockroaches nesting between the floorboards?
How do you know it isn't haunted? Well you get the idea.
Very few things that you buy are totally open everything from the firmware in your, PC, TV mobile phone, pocket calculator to the design of your motherboard; they are all closed.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just don't agree with the perspective you're espousing.
Likewise.
It sounds remarkably like someone who's been gaming on a PS2 a little too long, and forgets that the Revolution and 360 are still viable options.
Nope, don't play computer games. :p
More reverse engineering than anything, particularly before they put that bastard clause in the licence.
The MASM32 forum explains it all.
http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=171.0
I was tempted to join and do some trolling, but I thought I should do some reading first and decided against it. There's some interesting debate on there surounding licences but I'll discuss this in the MASM32 thread.
The only thing I'm really against is closed standards whether it be the file format a piece of software uses or the latest music or video format. I promote royalty-free open standards over free software because they are more fair on the software developers. I actually advocate the scrapping of all laws regarding interlectual property where system compatability is concerned. Developers don't have to release the source but they shoudn't be allowed to sue if someone reverse engineers their file format.
-
This is a long one, so batten down the hatches and prepare for a long rant. Hope I make some sense here. :D
There's no such virtual drive daemon on linux which supports it, so I'd have little need for Nero.
For ISO or NRG? ISO's can be mounted on a local loopback, like so (http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/how-to-mount-iso-image-under-linux.html). NRG will probably see support for this before too much longer, since Ahead is porting over to Linux.
Guys, I didn't mean to start a war here....I just really like Nero, and I thought it was great that a mainstream program is being ported to Linux. Which means that Linux is finally being recognized as a viable option to Windoze.
On the contrary, it's good to have healthy debate time and again. It helps to reinforce our stronger beliefs and to sway our weaker thoughts. I think it's GREAT that Ahead sees Linux as a real enough threat to the Windows marketplace to bother porting to it. I do not, however, agree with their licensing methods.
As far as the argument about proprietary software vs open source...well, that's to the individual to decide.
From a commercial standpoint, this is a perfectly viable stance. Unfortunately, when it comes down to determining the legal origins of software, there are some things you can find out with open source that you just can't with proprietary software.
I like the program, but it's the only one that I've used with Windoze that actually consistently works. I'm sure that there are lots of other ones out there for Linux, and once again, it's purely up to the individual to decide what he or she likes.
Well, that's what the community is all about, the freedom to make a decision. However, were I to agree with proprietary philosophies, I'd probably stick with Nero, too. It's representative of what that community should be rather than the horror show we have today. ;)
Anyway, you guys rock, and happy burnin';-)
Actually, I'd like to thank you - and so should the forum - for bringing this to our attention. As much as I don't like some of their finer-grained business policies, Ahead supporting Linux is HUGE news. :cool:
Why do you think this will happen with Linux?
If you've not noticed this before now, as much as I don't want to flame you, I can't help wondering if you've been reading anything I said. I watched this happen with DOS. Hell, remember Amiga? Ever see AROS recently? It's atrocious. I just don't want to see a decent development community go down the crapper because of some bad legal and business decisions.
Just because masses of people who don't agree with the GNU it doesn't mean that everything will become closed source.
Fair enough, there are other alternatives, and I'm not saying everything needs to be GPL per se.
I don't agree that Linux should be like some sort of religion where you have to agree with a certain philosophy, if all open source software is going to be like that then give me Microsoft any day.
I'm assuming you're not a total nihilist here, please correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't it easier to determine the legality of copyrighted source, to find the true origins of so-called "intellectual property", by making the process as transparent as possible? If so, I'm left to wonder what proprietary vendors have to gain from keeping source closed.
I was under the impression that your opposition to closed source software is a morral one. Perhaps I was putting you in the same crowd as piratePinguin who often makes claims about the evilness of proprietary software; if I'm wrong then I appologise.
That's understandable, but Penguin's views are actually quite in-line with my own. The key difference is that he's gone ahead and applied an intrinsic characteristic of evil practices to an a device that is, in and of itself, neither good nor evil. More often than not, he's referring to the corporations that close source for nefarious purposes - Sony comes to mind, XCP in particular.
I do see the advantages but of open source but I don't mandate it.
What's the problem with mandating clear-box code? Aside from the loss of questionably-gained profits, I don't see much else wrong with it. I don't think proprietary code should necessarily be punishable by incarceration, but I do happen to believe that detrimental acts should be punished by severe fines. Let me put it this way: if I had my way, by now Sony would have to sell its drive manufacturing plants to Fujitsu and split off Epic into its own independent agency just to stay afloat. I don't think ignoring the crime encourages anything but recidivism in the perpetrator.
What about sharred source software then?
I'm tempted, but I'd have to say categorically: no. I've seen far too much bullshit along the lines of "we'll share this, this, and this, but module X is a confidential trade secret" when module X contains damning code. It's like buying a dozen eggs that may or may not contain a shellacked hand-grenade.
Would you consider buying a piece of proprietary software that comes with source code but prohibits you from redistributing it?
That depends, the software or the source? If you mean the software, then I don't see that as a huge problem. If you're talking about the source under an NDA, though, then I have to question again - why isn't this public knowledge? What if I find out about a number of felonies committed in the acquisition of the source code, but the NDA prevents me from saying anything for fear of reprisal? I'd just as soon not enter into such an agreement, thanks.
That's almost the case with some modern cars these days anyway, you can't tinker with them like you used to and this is why I've known poeple who prefer classic cars. Personally I don't care about modifying or tinkering with my car, providing I can do a basic service I don't care, actually I tell a lie, I normally send it to the garrage for a service, all I ever do is check the oil, water, break fluid, tires etc.
You're missing the point. You can't observe any problems under the hood when you can't open it, so even those simple diagnostics can't be done. You'd have to rely on the idiot panel, which can be notoriously inaccurate (read: bad ABS sensors). You couldn't take it to your neighborhood mechanic, either - you'd have to get a new one from the manufacturer. My point is this: why do people put up with this shit from software vendors, when hardware manufacturers doing the same would cause bloody riots?
That's a silly annalogy and you know it.
Silly doesn't mean invalid. If you got the message, it worked. :p
But you can still only see what's on the surface.
Do you know how secure the foundations are?
Are you sure that the walls underneath all that plaster are strong enough?
Can you be certain that there are no cockroaches nesting between the floorboards?
How do you know it isn't haunted? Well you get the idea.
I get the idea. Around here, at least, we have building codes to address those issues. Stiff fines and prison sentences are associated with persistent violators. What's so bad about doing this for something else millions of people use on a daily basis?
Very few things that you buy are totally open everything from the firmware in your, PC, TV mobile phone, pocket calculator to the design of your motherboard; they are all closed.
My motherboard doesn't currently dictate what I do with my software, my television doesn't tell me what to watch (not even ONE properly configured V-chip in this household), and my calculator doesn't tell me not to include Liquid Paper as an office expense. All of those have open initiatives in one form or another to prevent that from happening in the future. Why should I settle for whatever short-sighted purpose the original vendor decided to give my 1's and 0's? Why should I PAY to see their short-sighted purpose? If they want to help me adapt, by all means, charge for that. But I don't appreciate being told to pay for something I can't adapt to my needs. I wouldn't buy a car without asking questions about the engine, and if the hood won't open, I won't buy it.
Likewise.
Fair enough, I suppose I've let my emotions into this, but I can't really help that when I feel as passionately about something like this. ;)
Nope, don't play computer games. :p
Wiseass. You got the point. :D
The MASM32 forum explains it all.
http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=171.0 (http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=171.0)
I was tempted to join and do some trolling, but I thought I should do some reading first and decided against it. There's some interesting debate on there surounding licences but I'll discuss this in the MASM32 thread.
Wise decision. I didn't mean to argue about MASM but it seemed a decent example. ;)
The only thing I'm really against is closed standards whether it be the file format a piece of software uses or the latest music or video format. I promote royalty-free open standards over free software because they are more fair on the software developers. I actually advocate the scrapping of all laws regarding interlectual property where system compatability is concerned. Developers don't have to release the source but they shoudn't be allowed to sue if someone reverse engineers their file format.
Well, don't get me wrong, I'm as anti-DMCA as the next anarchist. My main concern is that open standards are just one step shy of real, legally-enforceable licence agreements. If someone can see the source, there's no question about what was created by whom when. I don't mean this individually, but from a corporate and bureaucratic standpoint, the current licensing situation is a literal nightmare.
-
That's the longest rant I've see in a while ... but you lost me after the 6th or 7th paragraph (I'll try again later)
-
Umm...Who cares?
The more mainstream software that ports to linux, the more credibility linux gains. It's EXACTLY this kind of software that people say is why they won't switch. Well here they come. Next thing you know, Games will be ported (yeah right, in about another 30 years).
-
Umm...Who cares?
The more mainstream software that ports to linux, the more credibility linux gains. It's EXACTLY this kind of software that people say is why they won't switch. Well here they come. Next thing you know, Games will be ported (yeah right, in about another 30 years).
agreed. The more proprietry software available for linux based systems the more interest hardware vendors will take.
-
nero on linux. who cares? i use xcdroast because when i moved to linux it was at least as good as nero. it's not the same but fuck it, linux isn't the same as windows.
and i agree that people should want to use windows because they want freedom, but you have to realise that more and more people want to use linux because it's cool.
those people probably also think that distributing serial numbers for proprietary apps is cool. they have less ability to ratiocinate than the traditional linux using crowd, but if linux *is* to move ahead, perhaps these types will have to be welcomed and possibly pandered to.
EDIT: PS pofnlice is 100% right. for years on these very forums we've been saying if you want your programs on linux natively (rather than under wine for instance, mostly this is in response to the old "my xxx games don't run in linux" chestnut), then write to the vendors to package it for linux. now they start doing it, people complain?
-
I see a few people here complaining about Nero and their evil proprietary CD burning app "poluting" linux.
In FreeBSD, I use xcdroast too - but in order to get everything working properly with my DVD Writer, I had to use the binary/closed source version, which is free for non-commercial use. All of the free/open source cd writing apps would not work quite right with my Plextor DVD Burner.
I've read that this is not a FreeBSD only issue. Via mailing lists, I've read that Linux users with certain DVD Burners have had the same issues that I had, and the close source version of xcdroast is the only thing that worked for them too.
So if the open source community can't provide a proper solution for all of users, what's so bad about companies like Nero, and the author of xcdroast coming providing one?
-
Well, other than they are one of the ones who caused the problems you are talking about in the first place and now are making you pay for them to fix the problems they caused ... nothing.
-
I like the program, but it's the only one that I've used with Windoze that actually consistently works. I'm sure that there are lots of other ones out there for Linux, and once again, it's purely up to the individual to decide what he or she likes.
well its a utility, which says it all, linux has EVERY UTILITY IMAGINABLE,utities make up roughly 90% of foss
So can we do a comparison ... what can nero do that k3b can't ?
fuck up every iso ive tried to burn, so much i ordered ubuntu(ah my first trip to linux), other than that IDENTICAL
My problem is that we're getting huge throngs of users that neither know nor care of the history of why Torvalds made the Linux kernel and why Stallman continues to push open-source for it. The entire platform is about freedom, both of choice and of knowledge, and attempts by corporations to port applications to it without bothering to release the source should always be seen as a failure of the model. It is, quite literally, a slap in the face to everyone that ever worked to create FOSS alternatives because the proprietary vendors were too selfish to release their source specifications in any form.
i went to linux through ubuntu, and the technical design but later ventured to be a foss-fanboy in about a month, so its a good thing that vendors are considering linux but, i doubt a cd app is going to push throngs over to linux
There again why should people switch to Linux for wanting freedom, why can't they switch because they prefer it to the alternatives?
i sort of agree, honestly, did YOU orethrius come because of free as in freedom, free as in beer, or technical differances?
gael duval switched for free as in beer
Were some of these products to be airplanes, you can bet the FAA would be dealing with an epidemic of crashes this very moment. God forbid Windows should ever make it onto a Boeing in anything but an entertainment center.
its in more places than you think ive seen bsoded atms and terminals at airports so lord knows it may be but airport makers probobly dont want a bsoded plane so it may be linux embedded
As far as the argument about proprietary software vs open source...well, that's to the individual to decide.
nay, because proprietary is sometimes a way to hide stolen code *cough*microsoft*ahem* we cant have "protection" for coders this way without protected code-stealing arsebags who claim they innovated, once again,*cough*microsoft*ahem*
But you can still only see what's on the surface.
Do you know how secure the foundations are?
Are you sure that the walls underneath all that plaster are strong enough?
Can you be certain that there are no cockroaches nesting between the floorboards?
How do you know it isn't haunted? Well you get the idea.
Very few things that you buy are totally open everything from the firmware in your, PC, TV mobile phone, pocket calculator to the design of your motherboard; they are all closed.
thats what you need the code for!
nero on linux. who cares? i use xcdroast because when i moved to linux it was at least as good as nero. it's not the same but fuck it, linux isn't the same as windows.
and i agree that people should want to use windows because they want freedom, but you have to realise that more and more people want to use linux because it's cool.
those people probably also think that distributing serial numbers for proprietary apps is cool. they have less ability to ratiocinate than the traditional linux using crowd, but if linux *is* to move ahead, perhaps these types will have to be welcomed and possibly pandered to.
EDIT: PS pofnlice is 100% right. for years on these very forums we've been saying if you want your programs on linux natively (rather than under wine for instance, mostly this is in response to the old "my xxx games don't run in linux" chestnut), then write to the vendors to package it for linux. now they start doing it, people complain?
that used to be me! i used to be like that but a wine-ubuntu combination brought me to being such a foss fanboy, ive started to resemble stallmen
so more apps for linux is definitely great!
-
Very few things that you buy are totally open everything from the firmware in your, PC, TV mobile phone, pocket calculator to the design of your motherboard; they are all closed.
That's still shitty, and I will likely support any efforts to produce, in a community rather than corporate manner, to build free....anything.
Upheaveling proprietaryness, in this world.. very respectable.
-
That's still shitty, and I will likely support any efforts to produce, in a community rather than corporate manner, to build free....anything.
Upheaveling proprietaryness, in this world.. very respectable.
Some things can't be free. Much of the development of our beloved Linux is actually paid for by firmware, hardware, and software products. If everything was free, we'd go back to having just community members doing the work. That wouldn't be so bad, but we wouldn't see the rapid progress of the past few years anymore. So a few things actually have to be paid for. It's just a question of what. I think I can live with proprietary calculators as long as Firefox can remain free, know what I'm saying?
-
Some things can't be free. Much of the development of our beloved Linux is actually paid for by firmware, hardware, and software products. If everything was free, we'd go back to having just community members doing the work. That wouldn't be so bad, but we wouldn't see the rapid progress of the past few years anymore. So a few things actually have to be paid for. It's just a question of what. I think I can live with proprietary calculators as long as Firefox can remain free, know what I'm saying?
Firefox isn't free ;)
I think I get what you're saying but I wouldn't agree. First of all I mean free as in freedom ONLY - I would still pay for a free calculator. I don't know of a free (hardware) calculator that meets my needs, so I've a very proprietary one. Secondly.. It's a two way street. Releasing the secrets of how the things we pay for work could well lead to much MORE rapid development, too. I wouldn't be quick to cop out either way, I didn't in what I said in that post. It's just how I feel.
-
I watched this happen with DOS. Hell, remember Amiga? Ever see AROS recently? It's atrocious. I just don't want to see a decent development community go down the crapper because of some bad legal and business decisions.
I'm wondering now whether I can understand your point of view, what's this got to do with Linux been taken over by proprieatry software?
Anyway that will never happen.
Why?
Mainly because of the GPL and more improtantly the Network effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect), while it has created lock-in in the case of Windows, it won't happen in Linux because it is already dominated by open standards so there's no competitive advantage of making something imcompatable with everything else because no one will buy it.
Fair enough, there are other alternatives, and I'm not saying everything needs to be GPL per se.
What are you suggesting then?
I thought you were implying that proprietary aoftware shouldn't be allowed on Linux; amd I right?
I'm assuming you're not a total nihilist here, please correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't it easier to determine the legality of copyrighted source, to find the true origins of so-called "intellectual property", by making the process as transparent as possible? If so, I'm left to wonder what proprietary vendors have to gain from keeping source closed.
I can see your point (open source is easier to prove in court) but they have more to loose than gain; the thing that they're loosing is their "intellectual property" ( I am fully aware that this is what the vadility of "interelectual property is what you disagree with)..
Lots of open source software I've used isn't very innovative; OpenOffice.org and Firefox are prime examples of this and you should know that I'm not saying that Microsoft is. I often feel that this is because companies don't innovate because it doesn't give them a competitive edge. For example if a software company producing priorietary database software decides to develop a new AI pattern recognition algorithm to pick out the most suitible applicants in for a job, they can write the code, keep it secret and their product will have an advantage over their competitors. This wouldn't happen if their system was open source because their competitor could just include this feature in their own product. The most innovative open source software seems to be geeky things like programming languages and shells where the programmer has made a library either or the fun of it or because they need it; GTK+ and bash are prime examples of this.
What's the problem with mandating clear-box code?
Nothing, that's your personal choice.
I would rather prefer some superiour software that fulfills my needs rather than having to make do with second best. I don't have to see the source code to know that Opera is superiour to Firefox, just the fact that it has more useful features, it's smaller and uses less memory is good enough for me and if I were selecting some software at work I would do the same.
I don't think proprietary code should necessarily be punishable by incarceration, but I do happen to believe that detrimental acts should be punished by severe fines.
:D
I'm tempted, but I'd have to say categorically: no. I've seen far too much bullshit along the lines of "we'll share this, this, and this, but module X is a confidential trade secret" when module X contains damning code.
No, the whole thing sharred, total transparency, the only restriction being redistribution.
That depends, the software or the source? If you mean the software, then I don't see that as a huge problem. If you're talking about the source under an NDA, though,
Not quite, just restrictions on it being redistributed or how many people can use it, for example, you can't compile it or run it on more than one computer or use it in your own program without paying a royalty fee.
then I have to question again - why isn't this public knowledge? What if I find out about a number of felonies committed in the acquisition of the source code, but the NDA prevents me from saying anything for fear of reprisal?
Good point, but the same sort of thing crops up every day, patient-doctor confidentiality, business ethics, etc.
I'd just as soon not enter into such an agreement, thanks.
That's your choice of course.
What's so bad about doing this for something else millions of people use on a daily basis?
That depends on what you mean but they are already very strict rules imposed on safety critical software a lot of which can't be open source e.g. the software that runs military vehicles, airoplanes etc.
My motherboard doesn't currently dictate what I do with my software,
Doesn't Windows look at the motherboard to ensure you don't upgrade your PC?
my television doesn't tell me what to watch
Aren't some cable channels encrypted in your area?
I don't have Sky TV but I've heard that you can't record certain programs and films.
Vendor lock-in also affects, mobile phones, food processors and even electric razors, there's no limit!
My main concern is that open standards are just one step shy of real, legally-enforceable licence agreements.
The main reason why I disagree with mandating open source by law is that interlectual property is responsible for such a large proportion of the UK's economy (I can't speak for the US but I'd imagane it's not to different) that scrapping it would hurt big time.
[offtopic]That of open thing's starting to really piss me off, and this forum doesn't support noparse tags.[/offtopic]
-
it won't happen in Linux because it is already dominated by open standards so there's no competitive advantage of making something incompatible with everything else because no one will buy it.
wrong, only 5 distros are free and everyone seems to like including proprietary drivers nowadays and some distros boast proprietary stuff, if it keeps up nothing will be free just cost-free
What are you suggesting then?
I thought you were implying that proprietary software shouldn't be allowed on Linux; am I right?
it shouldn't exist PERIOD look at mandrake 5.1 and redhat 5.1, redhat didn't die because Linux was easy to install it gained because more people were able to use Linux thanks to mandrakes advances
I would rather prefer some superior software that fulfills my needs rather than having to make do with second best. I don't have to see the source code to know that Opera is superior to Firefox, just the fact that it has more useful features, it's smaller and uses less memory is good enough for me and if I were selecting some software at work I would do the same.
obviously you haven't tried any extensions yet(you should hear music if you use it and foxytunes (http://web.mit.edu/jinseok/www/songs/hj.shtml))you also spelled so many things wrong you NEED Firefox:rolleyes:, opera has limited functionality (http://files.myopera.com/Rijk/blog/extensions.html) and Firefox has been refined amazingly in minefield from what i saw, also, it is very obnoxious to say it is better than Firefox, i see why someone would prefer it, but in the end it is a matter of what suits your needs. also because of the modularity it is possible to get 5000+ Firefox developers working on it. so it is released more often
I can see your point (open source is easier to prove in court) but they have more to loose than gain; the thing that they're loosing is their "intellectual property" ( I am fully aware that this is what the validity of "intellectual property is what you disagree with)..
Lots of 0pen source software I've used isn't very innovative; OpenOffice.org and Firefox are prime examples of this and you should know that I'm not saying that Microsoft is. I often feel that this is because companies don't innovate because it doesn't give them a competitive edge. For example if a software company producing proprietary database software decides to develop a new AI pattern recognition algorithm to pick out the most suitable applicants in for a job, they can write the code, keep it secret and their product will have an advantage over their competitors. This wouldn't happen if their system was open source because their competitor could just include this feature in their own product. The most innovative open source software seems to be geeky things like programming languages and shells where the programmer has made a library either or the fun of it or because they need it; GTK+ and bash are prime examples of this.
not true. if it was indeed true than things like gnome, xgl, Firefox and Openoffice would not exist also a lot of proprietary stuff wasn't innovative either but some was, so too was some open source software innovative*cough*amarok*ahem*
also, have you noticed that Novell has not gone belly up? they are not the only ones who worked on mono and xgl at first but everyone has it now, because you can use the gpl, if someone DOES decide to take your products feature and add it, than take their code and rebrand it yourself, it takes a while to get a new feature into your code unless you have it first (Novell had xgl first) so you if two companies compete than the innovator will rake in and customers will win because companies have to compete or at least aim for different things so that it is a matter of opinion between them, like suse and red hat
:D
:p
No, the whole thing shared, total transparency, the only restriction being redistribution.
fair enough
there are already very strict rules imposed on safety critical software a lot of which can't be open source e.g. the software that runs military vehicles, airplanes etc.
well, yeah things need to be done in house in those cases but generally consumers profit from not being locked in to vendors because of x feature
Doesn't Windows look at the motherboard to ensure you don't upgrade your PC?
YEAH windoze does, do YOU run that POS
Aren't some cable channels encrypted in your area?
I don't have Sky TV but I've heard that you can't record certain programs and films.
Vendor lock-in also affects, mobile phones, food processors and even electric razors, there's no limit!
that doesn't mean that your tivo tells you, "no way buster you're watching the best of full house" also, GET THE FUCK OFF SKYTV IF IT DOES THAT:eek:
ps. that sounds very similar to an argument i heard "Firefox and internet explorer both let the user run programs (activex are programs)" i saw no evidence it effects Firefox and i don't see evidence it effects VCR's and tivo:nothappy:
The main reason why I disagree with mandating open source by law is that intellectual property is responsible for such a large proportion of the UK's economy (I can't speak for the US but I'd imagine it's not to different) that scrapping it would hurt big time.
that doesn't mean we would be saying that all proprietary software is illegal to use, it means that it would be open to see, all proprietary software would not just go away, but we could sue the HELL out of Microsoft for stolen code, you see
also i leave you with these notes
It is no lie that free software is more reliable. There are good reasons why free software tends to be of high quality. One reason is that free software gets the whole community involved in working together to fix problems. Users not only report bugs, they even fix bugs and send in fixes. Users work together, conversing by email, to get to the bottom of a problem and make the software work trouble-free. Another is that developers really care about reliability. Free software packages do not always compete commercially, but they still compete for a good reputation, and a program which is unsatisfactory will not achieve the popularity that developers hope for. What's more, an author who makes the source code available for all to see puts his reputation on the line, and had better make the software clean and clear, on pain of the community's disapproval.
There are general reasons why all computer users should insist on free software. It gives users the freedom to control their own computers--with proprietary software, the computer does what the software owner wants it to do, not what you want it to do. Free software also gives users the freedom to cooperate with each other, to lead an upright life.
-
It is no lie that free software is more reliable. There are good reasons why free software tends to be of high quality. One reason is that free software gets the whole community involved in working together to fix problems. Users not only report bugs, they even fix bugs and send in fixes. Users work together, conversing by email, to get to the bottom of a problem and make the software work trouble-free. Another is that developers really care about reliability. Free software packages do not always compete commercially, but they still compete for a good reputation, and a program which is unsatisfactory will not achieve the popularity that developers hope for. What's more, an author who makes the source code available for all to see puts his reputation on the line, and had better make the software clean and clear, on pain of the community's disapproval.
Thanks for bringing this up. While it is certainly true that open source SHOULD be better because of the multiple eyes watching the code, it might not. I've never actually looked at the source for most of the programs I've used, and I've never found a real bug. So the program being open source has not helped me to make the program better. Although cooperative development probably helps the dev cycle, it doesn't necessarily guarantee a good program. Even so, everyone points to it as the reason GNU is better. Probably because of ESR's essay about cathedrals and bazaars.
Anyway, the number one thing (IMO) that makes open source software better has nothing to do with the openness of the source. Rather, it has to do with the spirit of the author. Don Knuth, Larry Wall, Dennis Richie, RMS, Linus, and the others all wrote their famous programs to do their own work. Not one of those guys would have cared a damn if no one else had ever seen or used their programs. But they did it anyway, because it was important to them. Programs developed by an assembly line on the factory floor are more products than programs. Word and Excel and iTunes and Nero are products. emacs and gimp and troff and awk are programs. Do you see what I'm saying? The fact that these guys made their work open and free is almost tangential.
-
Anyway, the number one thing (IMO) that makes open source software better has nothing to do with the openness of the source. Rather, it has to do with the spirit of the author. Don Knuth, Larry Wall, Dennis Richie, RMS, Linus, and the others all wrote their famous programs to do their own work. Not one of those guys would have cared a damn if no one else had ever seen or used their programs. But they did it anyway, because it was important to them. Programs developed by an assembly line on the factory floor are more products than programs. Word and Excel and iTunes and Nero are products. emacs and gimp and troff and awk are programs. Do you see what I'm saying? The fact that these guys made their work open and free is almost tangential.
I like that. :thumbup:
-
Mostly what I find excelling over proprietary software in Open Source Software are text editors, and web related applications(Firefox, Apache, PHP). Other than that the playing field is fuzzy - I can't find a better open source interface in a Image editor than Fireworks, I seem to not be able to do in OpenOffice than in MS Word, and. Each of the examples stated above aren't even clear who could beat out who because each has clear advantages over the other(GIMP has the better tools yet can't beat the cleanliness of the Fireworks interface, OpenOffice has the better format and can export to PDFs(only format I can be guarunteed my users can use on every operating system that can be stuffed in a single file) but it still doesn't have the full features of MS Word). As I said the playing field is fuzzy when it comes to what the applications can do.
-
As I said the playing field is fuzzy when it comes to what the applications can do.
More that the playing field is fuzzy when it comes to what the applications should do. Nobody can ever really agree on what functions a program ought to have. So they design programs with the functions they want to have, or functions they think will sell well. A market where there were 15 different word processors using common and internal formats would be great, and everyone could choose which one was right for them. In reality, though, there is basically one word processor which has set a certain standard that all other word processors have to live up to, even though that standard may not have been the best idea in the first place. So everyone ends up with a giant bloated word processor office suite that they probably have no use for. I could probably live with an rtf editor and awk for the rest of my life, but I have the capability of formatting mailing labels anyway.
I'm sorta saying that's a bad thing. The whole software game comes down to "Which one is most like Microsoft Word?" And obviously, Word is going to win that match.
I have to agree with you on Fireworks, there are many things about it that I like a lot. But like I said a couple posts up, gimp wasn't designed to sell units or foster customer brand loyalty. It was built because a couple guys felt like it. There's definitely fame and glory out there for anybody who can take the gimp and make it more friendly. Then again, the standards of friendliness in a graphics program were kinda decided long ago by MacPaint, and even if that wasn't the best model, it's the one everyone wants to see.
Which brings us back around to what I said above. Paradigms deeper than canyons have been built up around us, and it takes some creative thinking and a dash of crazy to see past them.
-
it still doesn't have the full features of MS Word
have you used word to make 3d stuff, and used word to make sure word xp users and word 95 and 6 users can live in peace?
-
wrong, only 5 distros are free and everyone seems to like including proprietary drivers
That's because the hardware is mostly closed source therefore the drivers are too, but would you prefer proprietary drivers than no drivers or free drivers that contain bugs, lack functionality or are unstable because they are a product of reverse engineering?
The fact that some hardware companies support Linux is a good thing, it means more people will want to use the operating system.
I suppose, you've got me on that one, there again, I wasn't really talking about drivers. I was talking more about applications such as drawing and word-processors. Vendor lock-in with Linux software is highly unlikely even if some proprietary does become popular, for example because the OpenOffice.org.org dominates no one would consider using an office suit on Linux that isn't compatable with it, even if they prefer a proprietary alternative.
obviously you haven't tried any extensions yet
No, because with Opera I don't need any.
you also spelled so many things wrong you NEED Firefox:rolleyes:,
Opera does have a spellchecker but I don't bother using it, perhaps I should, anyway perhaps more software should include a grammar/punctuation checker, since you've missed out capital letters everywhere!
opera has limited functionality (http://files.my opera.com/Rijk/blog/extensions.html) and Firefox has been refined amazingly in minefield from what i saw, also,
Looking at it another way, Firefox has limited functionality; the fact that many people have to rely on extensions demonstrates this.
Why should I bother wasting my time with buggy extensions that can possibly break Firefox and possibly introduce new security flaws (http://secunia.com/product/11907/?task=advisories) when Opera does all I need without any, whilst being faster and uses less resources?
it is very obnoxious to say it is better than Firefox,
Sorry if I've annoyed you, but it should've been obvious that I was expressing my opinion.
There again it depends on what you mean by better, if you're talking about security for example then Opera is better in this regard, there are not unpatched Opera vulnerabilities (http://secunia.com/product/10615/) whilst there is still one unpatched Firefox 2.x advisory (http://secunia.com/product/12434/).
i see why someone would prefer it, but in the end it is a matter of what suits your needs. also because of the modularity it is possible to get 5000+ Firefox developers working on it. so it is released more often
I can also see why you prefer Firefox, the extensions are an advantage but, as I've said previously I'd rather do without them because they pose an additional security risk.
not true. if it was indeed true than things like gnome, xgl, Firefox and Openoffice would not exist
Why wouldn't they exist?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're crap, I like both Gnome and OpenOffice.org but I don't think there's anything particularly novel about either of them.
They don't exist because they're innovative, they exist largely because they are, lower cost than their alternatives, they are good quality and they appeal to people like us who oppose the Microsoft and even Apple.
also a lot of proprietary stuff wasn't innovative either but some was, so too was some open source software innovative*cough*amarok*ahem*
I've never even heard of that, I suppose it isn't something that I would use.
Hell, I wasn't even meaning to say that open source software can't be innovative, it was just my theory as to why some of it isn't very innovative and there is no proof that it is less innovative than proprietary software. I just feel that the ability for companies to keep trade secrets is often a motive for innovation.
I often feel that innovators are mostly relatively small software companies who are trying to get more people using their software, take Opera for example, they are a lot smaller than Netscape or Microsoft but they've produced the one of the most innovative browsers, the lots of features that appear in Firefox have actually been borrowed from it.
have you noticed that Novel has not gone belly up? they are not the only ones who worked on mono and xgl at first but everyone has it now, because you can use the gpl, if someone DOES decide to take your products feature and add it, than take their code and re-brand it yourself, it takes a while to get a new feature into your code unless you have it first (Novel had xgl first) so you if two companies compete than the innovator will rake in and customers will win because companies have to compete or at least aim for different things so that it is a matter of opinion between them, like suse and red hat
I don't buy your argument, for one the companies you're talking about also produce proprietary software and I don't see the big delay in a competitor using code, not to mention that you can't actually make someone pay for free source software.
YEAH windoze does, do YOU run that POS
Being a bit hypocritical aren't we?
A Windows supporter might find that remark very obnoxious.
To answer your question, yes I do run Windows and search the forum if you don't know why.
It is no lie that free software is more reliable. There are good reasons why free software tends to be of high quality. One reason is that free software gets the whole community involved in working together to fix problems. Users not only report bugs, they even fix bugs and send in fixes. Users work together, conversing by email, to get to the bottom of a problem and make the software work trouble-free. Another is that developers really care about reliability. Free software packages do not always compete commercially, but they still compete for a good reputation, and a program which is unsatisfactory will not achieve the popularity that developers hope for. What's more, an author who makes the source code available for all to see puts his reputation on the line, and had better make the software clean and clear, on pain of the community's disapproval.
There is no proof to back up what you have said above, all that is, is an opinion maybe or even a theory, it has been proven no more than my theory that software developers releasing there products as free software might not have any motivation to innovative because they can't keep any trade secrets.
Take the Opera vs Firefox security debate, why is there still an unpatched Firefox advisory? Where are all the 1000,000s of people trying to fix it?
There is also the disadvantage that hackers can find exploits in the source there again most exploits aren't found in the manner.
have you used word to make 3d stuff,
That still doesn't detract from the fact that OpenOffice is playing catch up with Word on a couple of things, sure, you can create better 3D shapes but how many people actually use that feature? Isn't this something more useful in a drawing package? Even then it really belongs in a 3D CAD program and compared to that it's pretty poor.
I would say that OpenOffice.org isn't that far behind MS Office as far as features are concerned but it is enough to put some people off and not without valid reason.
My main criticism with OpenOffice.org is that despite being more compact than MS Office, it still uses more memory, it still takes longer to load than any MS Office program. This is because MS Office is made up of smaller binaries whilst OpenOffice has one big fuck-off soffice.bin, for example you load Word and word.exe loads, you load Writer and soffice.bin loads containing Impress, Calc, Draw etc. even though you don't need them. You might say, oh what about, swriter.exe, sdraw.exe etc? Well those little binaries just launchers, if you look at your task list, you'll find that soffice.bin loads regardless of which launcher you run.
and used word to make sure word xp users and word 95 and 6 users can live in peace?
That's a non-issue for most companies because they just use one version of MS Office let's not even mention the nightmare of incompatibilities between MS Word and OpenOffice.org.
Please also note that I'm looking at this from the user's perspective. I am fully aware that the vendor lock-in associated with MS Office is a bad thing and has noting to do with the quality of OpenOffice.org, however it does effect how useful it is. You can't just tell everyone who sends you a Word to resend it in ODF or PDF, it will put people off doing business with you.
The whole software game comes down to "Which one is most like Microsoft Word?" And obviously, Word is going to win that match.
Because Word has dominated the market for so long, this will be the case. Suppose a user tries OpenOffice.org only to realise that they can't do something they could in Word, they will drop it like a hot potatoe and come rushing back to MS Word. The only way a word processor can actually beat Word is by being able to do everything that Word can do and more while being cheaper and more stable.
A simple word processor with extensions might be a good idea but I don't always like extensions as the can often cause stability and security issues. Perhaps if they were to be implemented in such a way that they could fuck things up then I would suport them.
-
That's because the hardware is mostly closed source therefore the drivers are too, but would you prefer proprietary drivers than no drivers or free drivers that contain bugs, lack functionality or are unstable because they are a product of reverse engineering?
The fact that some hardware companies support Linux is a good thing, it means more people will want to use the operating system.
I suppose, you've got me on that one, there again, I wasn't really talking about drivers. I was talking more about applications such as drawing and word-processors. Vendor lock-in with Linux software is highly unlikely even if some proprietary does become popular, for example because the OpenOffice.org.org dominates no one would consider using an office suit on Linux that isn't compatable with it, even if they prefer a proprietary alternative.
No, because with Opera I don't need any.
Opera does have a spellchecker but I don't bother using it, perhaps I should, anyway perhaps more software should include a grammar/punctuation checker, since you've missed out capital letters everywhere!
No, Firefox has limited functionality; the fact that many people have to rely on extensions demonstrates this.
Why should I bother wasting my time with buggy extensions that can possibly break Firefox and possibly introduce new security flaws (http://secunia.com/product/11907/?task=advisories) when Opera does all I need without any, whilst being faster and uses less resources?
Ah, So I suppose Opera can automically download videos to your HD from sites like youtube, google video,etc...,let you use GMAIL as a file hosting service, let you switch between the IE and FF rendering engine? Or how bout converting text to binary,rot13, morse,etc? Or even control your media player from your browser? How about a plugin that automatically can block nearly every ad on the internet, let you easily block images, flash animations,etc..? Or imageshack upload plugin so you can just upload an image that you see to imageshack? Haven't seen opera do any of that.
And these plugins, are alot more refined and less buggy then you think.
-
Ah, So I suppose Opera can automically download videos to your HD from sites like youtube, google video,etc
low quality .flv files? Yech...
...,let you use GMAIL as a file hosting service,
Attatch file to draft? Or email to yourself?
let you switch between the IE and FF rendering engine?
I'm not really that lazy. I use keyboard shortcuts now to summon browsers :P
Or how bout converting text to binary,rot13, morse,etc?
Only one halfways useful you mention up there is ROT13, and I'd rather have an MD5 encryptor/decryptor, neither of which come to use for me when there's a PHP function for that and I don't need to manually encrypt that stuff.
Or even control your media player from your browser?
Every time I see an MP3 or whatever I can control the thing from the browser. I've never had the problem of not being able to do this.
How about a plugin that automatically can block nearly every ad on the internet, let you easily block images, flash animations,etc..?
There is a content blocker in Opera. If you know how to use it you can block absolutely any ad(even AdSense ads) on any page for every page you visit just like AdBlock. I can show you proof by a screenshot of YTMND stripped completely of ads if I need to.
Or imageshack upload plugin so you can just upload an image that you see to imageshack? Haven't seen opera do any of that.
Imageshack? That slow thing? I would never upload to something that slow.
-
Oh people.
https://addons.mozilla.org/
http://www.allpeers.com/
-
Tl;dr
-
Tl;dr
Congratulations, you won the Internet. :D
-
That's because the hardware is mostly closed source therefore the drivers are too, but would you prefer proprietary drivers than no drivers or free drivers that contain bugs, lack functionality or are unstable because they are a product of reverse engineering?
The fact that some hardware companies support Linux is a good thing, it means more people will want to use the operating system.
I suppose, you've got me on that one, there again, I wasn't really talking about drivers. I was talking more about applications such as drawing and word-processors. Vendor lock-in with Linux software is highly unlikely even if some proprietary does become popular, for example because the OpenOffice.org.org dominates no one would consider using an office suit on Linux that isn't compatible with it, even if they prefer a proprietary alternative.
the openness of 0penoffice makes it possible to make things compatible with it very easily, i use abiword for light things and koffice for memos and openoffice for heavy duty word processing, what if people use staroffice? thats proprietary and thats compatible
[ i haven't tried any extensions yet] because with Opera I don't need any.
fair enough i see why you prefer it but when does 10.0 come out?
Opera does have a spellchecker but I don't bother using it, perhaps I should, anyway perhaps more software should include a grammar/punctuation checker, since you've missed out capital letters everywhere!
i never knew that. and yeah i wish that more things corrected grammar i don't care about capitols.
Looking at it another way, Firefox has limited functionality; the fact that many people have to rely on extensions demonstrates this.
right, i agree, but the fact is that most people don't need a bittorrent client and those that do generally prefer a bittorrent client that isn't tied to something else, so why include one? i tried getting staroffice 8 with opera's built in client but i decided to go with ktorrent as opera wasn't doing anything
Why should I bother wasting my time with buggy extensions that can possibly break Firefox and possibly introduce new security flaws when Opera does all I need without any, whilst being faster and uses less resources?
fair enough it suits your needs better and there is no clear cut winner, at least not as much as there is comparing either to internet explorer
Sorry if I've annoyed you, but it should've been obvious that I was expressing my opinion.
once again fair enough, thats your opinion but you quote bigpimping, making an edit so as to "correct him" that it is his opinion not fact that windows gets less secure with each release, then you turn around and oh so blatantly state Firefox is inferior!
There again it depends on what you mean by better, if you're talking about security for example then Opera is better in this regard, there are not unpatched Opera vulnerabilities whilst there is still one unpatched Firefox 2.x advisory.
if you are talking about KNOWN vulnerabilities than sure it is less secure but altogether Firefox wins in that regard, anyone using Firefox that visits this link will be pleasantly surprised (http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/its-a-trap.html)
I can also see why you prefer Firefox, the extensions are an advantage but, as I've said previously I'd rather do without them because they pose an additional security risk.
i see why you don't like extensions and you can see why i do, so fair enough lets forget about them
Why wouldn't they exist?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're crap, I like both Gnome and OpenOffice.org but I don't think there's anything particularly novel about either of them.
They don't exist because they're innovative, they exist largely because they are, lower cost than their alternatives, they are good quality and they appeal to people like us who oppose the Microsoft and even Apple.
openoffice is young, let it time, and gnome is not innovative but it isn't designed to be, just like Ubuntu isn't designed to be innovative, they are both good though
if you want innovation then go with Novell who pioneered xgl and mono and made macros from excel work in calc
and kde the most innovative thing ever! amarok, twin paneled file management and more!
I've never even heard of that, I suppose it isn't something that I would use.
you never heard of amaroK!?!?!?!?
Hell, I wasn't even meaning to say that open source software can't be innovative, it was just my theory as to why some of it isn't very innovative and there is no proof that it is less innovative than proprietary software. I just feel that the ability for companies to keep trade secrets is often a motive for innovation.
i think the ability to keep trade secrets detracts from innovation, Microsoft made no notable changes to .doc format sine 1995, if 0penoffice 2.0 was released in 98 then in order to make sure noone could read .docs they would have to add some feature or compress it a bit, or do SOMETHING big that would make it both preferable and incompatible to openoffice
I often feel that innovators are mostly relatively small software companies who are trying to get more people using their software, take Opera for example, they are a lot smaller than Netscape or Microsoft but they've produced the one of the most innovative browsers, the lots of features that appear in Firefox have actually been borrowed from it.
Netscape was more innovative, actually, at least until Microsoft killed them and AOL bought them up also apple is big and its name goes hand in hand with innovation
I don't buy your argument, for one the companies you're talking about also produce proprietary software and I don't see the big delay in a competitor using code, not to mention that you can't actually make someone pay for free source software.
if they wanted to xgl would belong to Novell and so would mono, but as Nat Friedman said "there are a couple of things we are not letting go of, freedom were not letting go of" so fedora Ubuntu and Mandriva can all have 3d but after Novell
Being a bit hypocritical aren't we?
A Windows supporter might find that remark very obnoxious.
To answer your question, yes I do run Windows and search the forum if you don't know why.
well then as you run windows that remark applies but i laugh at you're remark as orethrius and i don't use windows so you might as well say "all non Microsoft oses are Kubuntu"
There is no proof to back up what you have said above, all that is, is an opinion maybe or even a theory, it has been proven no more than my theory that software developers releasing there products as free software might not have any motivation to innovative because they can't keep any trade secrets.
Take the Opera vs Firefox security debate, why is there still an unpatched Firefox advisory? Where are all the 1000,000s of people trying to fix it?
There is also the disadvantage that hackers can find exploits in the source there again most exploits aren't found in the manner.
That still doesn't detract from the fact that OpenOffice is playing catch up with Word on a couple of things, sure, you can create better 3D shapes but how many people actually use that feature? Isn't this something more useful in a drawing package? Even then it really belongs in a 3D CAD program and compared to that it's pretty poor.
I would say that OpenOffice.org isn't that far behind MS Office as far as features are concerned but it is enough to put some people off and not without valid reason.
My main criticism with OpenOffice.org is that despite being more compact than MS Office, it still uses more memory, it still takes longer to load than any MS Office program. This is because MS Office is made up of smaller binaries whilst OpenOffice has one big fuck-off soffice.bin, for example you load Word and word.exe loads, you load Writer and soffice.bin loads containing Impress, Calc, Draw etc. even though you don't need them. You might say, oh what about, swriter.exe, sdraw.exe etc? Well those little binaries just launchers, if you look at your task list, you'll find that soffice.bin loads regardless of which launcher you run.
ok fine on a windows machine, word starts up faster but if you try it under wine or crossover compared to the windows version of 0penoffice you'll see it for the bloated pos it is, it is tied to the operating system is why its faster! i use it occasionally under crossover and i HATE its startup!
That's a non-issue for most companies because they just use one version of MS Office let's not even mention the nightmare of incompatibilities between MS Word and OpenOffice.org.[/quote]
no, lets DO talk about the compatibility issues! i have openoffice at work because a couple of people use older versions and i like to keep the peace with it and as you can save in all versions of .doc(flawlessly in 2.0) it has no "incompatibility issues" i HATE the interface and i HATE the features but it is SO compatible i need it
Please also note that I'm looking at this from the user's perspective. I am fully aware that the vendor lock-in associated with MS Office is a bad thing and has noting to do with the quality of 0penOffice.org, however it does effect how useful it is. You can't just tell everyone who sends you a Word to resend it in ODF or PDF, it will put people off doing business with you.
no you cant but you CAN open the .doc and save in .doc so it doesn't matter! from what you say it seems like you need to try 2.0 i don't think you have, you may have tried 1.x but 2.0 deals with all the issues
Because Word has dominated the market for so long, this will be the case. Suppose a user tries OpenOffice.org only to realise that they can't do something they could in Word, they will drop it like a hot potato and come rushing back to MS Word. The only way a word processor can actually beat Word is by being able to do everything that Word can do and more while being cheaper and more stable.
A simple word processor with extensions might be a good idea but I don't always like extensions as the can often cause stability and security issues. Perhaps if they were to be implemented in such a way that they could fuck things up then I would support them.___
no the issue isn't which one is more like word the issue is which one is more compatible with what we have now, which one is easier to use or learn to use and which one will give us more value in the total cost of ownership, word use to win but not anymore!
-
the openness of 0penoffice makes it possible to make things compatible with it very easily, i use abiword for light things and koffice for memos and openoffice for heavy duty word proccesing, what if people use staroffice? thats proprietary and thats compatible
My point exactly, no one will ever consider releasing some proprietary software for Linux without making it compatible with the existing formats which are open therefore proprietary software on Linux is unlikely to create vendor lock-in.
fair enough i see why you prefer it but when does 10.0 come out?
The release date hasn't been finalised yet.
once again fair enough, thats your opinion but you quote bigpimping, making an edit so as to "correct him" that it is his opinion not fact that windows gets less secure with each release, then you turn around and oh so blatantly state firefox is inferior!
Where did I say that?
Would you please evidence to back up your claim, like a quote and a link to the post?
if you are talking about KNOWN vulnerabilities than sure it is less secure but altogether firefox wins in that regard,
How does Firefox win?
Perhaps it's because Opera has more known vulnerabilities than Firefox, but it doesn't matter since unlike Firefox they've all been patched.
I don't see how having more known unfixed vulnerabilities than Opera is good news for Firefox.
Obviously this only deals with known exploits because it's impossible to deal with the unknown exploits!
Sure, Opera might have more unfixed unknown vulnerabilities than Firefox, Firefox could have more unknown vulnerabilities than Opera.
You could argue that only the known vulnerabilities are more important since they can be used for an attack, there again so can the vulnerabilities that we don't know about but the attackers do either there's no point in arguing this because there is no way of proving which browser has the most unknown vulnerabilities we can only go on what we know.
if you want innovation then go with novell who pioneered xgl and mono and made macros from excel work in calc
XGL, well maybe I'll give you that but I wouldn't say that making macros from Excel work in Calc is innovative, besides correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the latter a proprietary extension?
kde the most innovative thing ever!
I don't know but tell that to a Mac OS fanboy and they'll probably list the features copied from Mac OS.
netscape was more innovative, actually, at least until microsoft killed them and aol bought them up also apple is big and its name goes hand in hand with innovation
Netscape more innovative than Opera?
That's debatable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Opera_Browser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape
Screenshot of MultiTorg Opera circa 1995 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/89/MultiTorg_Opera.png), running on Windows 3.1, remember that?
Screenshot of Netscape Navigator 4.08 (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Netscape_Navigator_4.png) released in 1998.
Opera was released in 1996 just as Netscape was on the wein due to MS illegally bundling IE with Windows and lack of innovation on their part probably had a hand in it too. No doubt, Opera has borrowed from Netscape but it added new features, look at it another way Netscape has gone and Opera is still here which is mainly due to innovation.
well then as you run windows that remark applies
Running Windows doesn't mean anything. Actually, I agree with your remark regarding Windows being a pice of shit, all that fucking DRM!
I was making the point that a Windows fanboy might find that remark offensive.
Would you find it offensive if someone said "Linux is a fucking piece of shit!" or "Firefox is an inferior compared to Internet Explorer which is superior in every way"?
but i laugh at youre remark as orethrius
Was it that funny? Well thanks, could you please highlight what you found funny so I'll remember to tell the joke again. :D
so you might as well say "all non microsoft oses are kubuntu"
No, don't be silly. I wouldn't say that FreeDOS or even Mandriva are anything like Kubuntu!
ok fine on a windows machine, word starts up faster but if you try it under wine or crossover compared to the windows version of 0penoffice youll see it for the bloated pos it is, it is tied to the operating system is why its faster! i use it occasionally under crossover and i HATE its startup!
You will obviously find that the performance of programs will differ between Windows and Wine. I haven't tried MS Office in WINE so I can't possibly comment on this.
One thing I can comment on is memory usage, I've found that MS Office mostly uses less memory than OpenOffice. I don't believe that this can vary much between WINE and Windows. A program mallocs what it wants, there is no reason why a should suddenly decide to use more memory under WINE or Windows because it doesn't actually know what OS it's running under. I suppose there could be difference between how much memory a GUI object uses but it shouldn't be that great.
There again, I suppose we're talking about personal experience again, yours will differ from mine.
no you cant but you CAN open the .doc and save in .doc so it doesnt matter! from what you say it seems like you need to try 2.0 i dont think you have, you may have tried 1.x but 2.0 deals with all the issues
OpenOffice 2.0? That's so last year!
I'm using OpenOffice 2.1 and it's a myth that all of those issues have been resolved.
Here's an example, OpenOffice formula doesn't support more that one line but MS Equation does.
Open Word, go to insert object, MS Equation, enter a formula containing several lines, save the file.
Now try to open the file in OpenOffice and see what happens to your formula!
Just because you haven't had any compatibility problems, it doesn't mean that other people haven't.
I understand that people only have such compatibility problems with OpenOffice.org because MS has locked them into using their products. Regardless of the the cause these compatibility problems still exist and are a major reason for people choosing MS Office over OpenOffice.org.
-
I've gotten sick of arguing about the technical and other differences between free and non-free software, so now I just stick to what's given... non-free software developers insist on greed (generally), free software dev's do not, while GPL pushers insist on freedom.
That tends to do it for me.
-
i dont care about capitols.
or spelling apparently. :-)
it's a void argument by the way in a sense, because if Free software really is "better" then it will "win" in the end. and if it's not, then everything it claims about itself might well be rubbish. The proof is definitely in the pudding, and i am confident that Free Open Source Software can put its "money" (or whatever) where its mouth is.
-
My point exactly, no one will ever consider releasing some proprietary software for Linux without making it compatible with the existing formats which are open therefore proprietary software on Linux is unlikely to create vendor lock-in.
don't you see how easy it would be for someone to make a proprietary fork that was really good, and then once it was the standard, change things?, although i may be getting a bit too used to Microsoft.
Where did I say that?
Would you please evidence to back up your claim, like a quote and a link to the post?
sure(if i could find it!)
How does Firefox win?
Perhaps it's because Opera has more known vulnerabilities than Firefox, but it doesn't matter since unlike Firefox they've all been patched.
I don't see how having more known unfixed vulnerabilities than Opera is good news for Firefox.
Obviously this only deals with known exploits because it's impossible to deal with the unknown exploits!
Sure, Opera might have more unfixed unknown vulnerabilities than Firefox, Firefox could have more unknown vulnerabilities than Opera.
You could argue that only the known vulnerabilities are more important since they can be used for an attack, there again so can the vulnerabilities that we don't know about but the attackers do either there's no point in arguing this because there is no way of proving which browser has the most unknown vulnerabilities we can only go on what we know.
what i mean is, Firefox is very secure in that it tells you when you visit phishing sites, Firefox 3 will have built in sandbox, and more features like that, and correct me if I'm wrong but aren't those vulnerabilities tied to a specific extension?
I don't know but tell that to a Mac OS fanboy and they'll probably list the features copied from Mac OS.
im pretty sure twin paneled file management and other things designed for productivity are kde creations
Netscape more innovative than Opera?
That's debatable.
Opera was released in 1996 just as Netscape was on the wain due to MS illegally bundling IE with Windows and lack of innovation on their part probably had a hand in it too. No doubt, Opera has borrowed from Netscape but it added new features, look at it another way Netscape has gone and Opera is still here which is mainly due to innovation.
if innovation dictated it Microsoft wouldn't exist, but it does so that cant be true, besides if Microsoft hadn't killed them they would STILL be innovating
but, lets agree to disagree
Running Windows doesn't mean anything. Actually, I agree with your remark regarding Windows being a piece of shit, all that fucking DRM!
I was making the point that a Windows fanboy might find that remark offensive.
THEY DONT EXIST! (http://lists.essential.org/1998/am-info/msg01529.html)
Was it that funny? Well thanks, could you please highlight what you found funny so I'll remember to tell the joke again.
My motherboard doesn't currently dictate what I do with my software, my television doesn't tell me what to watch (not even ONE properly configured V-chip in this household), and my calculator doesn't tell me not to include Liquid Paper as an office expense. All of those have open initiatives in one form or another to prevent that from happening in the future. Why should I settle for whatever short-sighted purpose the original vendor decided to give my 1's and 0's? Why should I PAY to see their short-sighted purpose? If they want to help me adapt, by all means, charge for that. But I don't appreciate being told to pay for something I can't adapt to my needs. I wouldn't buy a car without asking questions about the engine, and if the hood won't open, I won't buy it.
to which you replied
Doesn't Windows look at the motherboard to ensure you don't upgrade your PC?
keep in mind orethrius's signature
Proudly posted from a Gentoo Linux system.
"Linux: Because 22,000 students in Indiana can't be wrong." -pofnlice
"moan bitch moan" -Pathos
System Vitals
Trigger 2.6 P4 @ 1024MB, 500+ GB, Gentoo
Darkstar 450 P3 @ 192MB, ~ 2 GB, Gentoo
Leviathan 1.8T64 @ 512MB, ~ 80 GB, Gentoo
Frankystein 1.6 P4 @ 384MB, ~ 40 GB, Gentoo, LCD Failure
so, no, his computer doesn't tell him what to do!
No, don't be silly. I wouldn't say that FreeDOS or even Mandriva are anything like Kubuntu!
that was my point! it is absurd to say that! just as it is absurd to say that windows controls orethrius's motherboard as he is 100% Gentoo!
You will obviously find that the performance of programs will differ between Windows and Wine. I haven't tried MS Office in WINE so I can't possibly comment on this.
One thing I can comment on is memory usage, I've found that MS Office mostly uses less memory than OpenOffice. I don't believe that this can vary much between WINE and Windows. A program mallocs what it wants, there is no reason why a should suddenly decide to use more memory under WINE or Windows because it doesn't actually know what OS it's running under. I suppose there could be difference between how much memory a GUI object uses but it shouldn't be that great.
There again, I suppose we're talking about personal experience again, yours will differ from mine.
what i mean is word is built into the operating system so before you even start it, it has been half-way opened! so of course it starts faster! on an os that it isnt built into it starts up 10 seconds slower than the windows openoffice!
OpenOffice 2.0? That's so last year!
I'm using OpenOffice 2.1 and it's a myth that all of those issues have been resolved.
Here's an example, OpenOffice formula doesn't support more that one line but MS Equation does.
Open Word, go to insert object, MS Equation, enter a formula containing several lines, save the file.
Now try to open the file in OpenOffice and see what happens to your formula!
Just because you haven't had any compatibility problems, it doesn't mean that other people haven't.
I understand that people only have such compatibility problems with OpenOffice.org because MS has locked them into using their products. Regardless of the the cause these compatibility problems still exist and are a major reason for people choosing MS Office over OpenOffice.org.
that is NOT playing catchup that is far ahead of microsoft office not opening odfs at all! openoffice opens its native files perfectly so to be fair you should compare native files not conversion!
also, you know i meant 2.x!
-
don't you see how easy it would be for someone to make a proprietary fork that was really good, and then once it was the standard, change things?, although i may be getting a bit too used to Microsoft.
No because the GPL wouldn't allow that to happen.
sure(if i could find it!)
Well that's because I've never said such a thing. :-)
I think you've misunderstood me (a recurring theme here).
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=121569&postcount=47
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=121583&postcount=49
http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=121603&postcount=51
I was responding to LiquidOxygen and the only thing I corrected was that he was confusing his personal opinion for fact.
im pretty sure twin paneled file management and other things designed for productivity are kde creations
Damn, I fotgot to mention the origional inspiration for the creation KDE.
what i mean is, Firefox is very secure in that it tells you when you visit phishing sites, Firefox 3 will have built in sandbox, and more features like that, and correct me if
Good, may be I'll use it, if the sandbox is good enough to totally insulate my system from any bugs in the extensions and it includes full zooming, window tilling and a decient download manager.
I'm wrong but aren't those vulnerabilities tied to a specific extension?
No, they affect the whole program.
THEY DONT EXIST! (http://"")
I didn't say they didn't exist.
My only point was that you found it offensive when I stated my opinion that Opera is better than Firefox. which you found obnoxious, you then stated your opinion the Windows is a piece of shit which a Windows supporter might find obnoxious.
What I mean is if you're offended when people go around saying things like "Firefox fucking sucks", then don't go around saying things like "Internet Explorer fucking sucks".
To be honest, it doesn't bother me if someone were to say "Opera fucking sucks", it's a piece of software for fuck sake! It it isn't like someone's said something bad about me or a member of my family! The software I use is just a means to an end as far as I'm concerned, it's just a tool to get a job done.
I first used Internet Explorer, then I found Firefox which was better to I started using it, eventually I came across Opera which is even better and is why I'm using it today, if tomorrow Firfox gets better than Opera than I'll switch to it immediately.
I suppose I can understand people getting emotional when it comes to arguing about proprietary vs open source as it's a whole ideology but I find it quite pathetic that people get so emotional when someone doesn't like some of the software they use.
so, no, his computer doesn't tell him what to do!
that was my point! it is absurd to say that! just as it is absurd to say that windows controls orethrius's motherboard as he is 100% Gentoo!
Alright, fair enough, I cocked that one up! :D
I was trying to make the point that, the motherboard manufacturers collaborate with MS; i.e. they only share their specs with them. So yes, if your motherboard doesn't support Linux then in effect it is telling you what OS to run! If your hardware was all open source then this wouldn't happen. I was making the point that many of the arguments that apply to open source software apply to hardware so if you believe that boycoting closed source software is a good decision then perhaps you should either rethink it or be more careful about your choice of hardware.
what i mean is word is built into the operating system so before you even start it, it has been half-way opened! so of course it starts faster! on an os that it isnt built into it starts up 10 seconds slower than the windows openoffice!
That, isn't true, I'm using Windows XP and I don't even have MS Office installed!
MS Office isn't like Internet Explorer, it isn't part of Windows, it's a separate piece of software!
Comparing the performance of programs under Windows vs WINE makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!
that is NOT playing catchup that is far ahead of microsoft office not opening odfs at all! openoffice opens its native files perfectly so to be fair you should compare native files not conversion!
also, you know i meant 2.x!
Point taken, but I was responding to your comment:
no you cant but you CAN open the .doc and save in .doc so it doesnt matter! from what you say it seems like you need to try 2.0 i dont think you have, you may have tried 1.x but 2.0 deals with all the issues
Whether it's right or wrong, many people won't migrate to OpenOfice.org because it won't 100% reliably open up or save MS Office documents. They don't give a fuck about ODF, been able to save in a format that no one else uses makes difference to the average user. They'd rather it save in MS Office formats which is what they (rightly or wrongly) consider to be the standard.
I was also making another point; OpenOffice.org lacks some of the features of MS Office, in this respect it is behind of Microsoft Office and is playing catch up.
[offtopic]I've been playing devil's advocate a lot of the time. Yes, I do support open source software, no I don't think there's anything wrong with proprietary software but I'm not realing trying to convert people here just hopegfully get them to look at things from another perspective.
I don't like Microsoft but if this forum was full of M$ Winblow$ $ux A$$ posts it would be pretty boring. What many people here don't realise is that when I first joined this forum, I didn't take it seriously, I made a few silly posts, then realised that this forum has a point but people can get carried away. All too often I see posts critisising Windows or Microsoft but contain more emotion i.e. hate than reasoning. Getting it off your chest is fair enough but saying things like "Microsoft is evil :insert totally unfounded bullshit reason here: they should be shot!" doesn't really give a good impression to people searching the forums; it won't encourage many people to adopt thier cause.
Some people may think I'm trolling but I prefer to call it spicing up the debate a little. [/offtopic]
-
Ah man, do we really give a fig what Win drones archive at their stupid jobs with whatever Win software anyways? Not me. Much like in the case of PC "gamers", it seems pretty self important to me to make such a stink about a software feature that isn't really that universally used and condemning software that lacks it. Same with photoshop. Like it really matters that some doofus can't photoshop some gag pics without the latest Photoshop CS XT PRXLT. Like it really matters that some dumbass needs to write his Psycholoconjobs 101 essays in .doc files since his dumbass professor demands it. Not everything revolves around a couple of applications.
-
Ah man, do we really give a fig what Win drones archive at their stupid jobs with whatever Win software anyways? Not me. Much like in the case of PC "gamers", it seems pretty self important to me to make such a stink about a software feature that isn't really that universally used and condemning software that lacks it. Same with photoshop. Like it really matters that some doofus can't photoshop some gag pics without the latest Photoshop CS XT PRXLT. Like it really matters that some dumbass needs to write his Psycholoconjobs 101 essays in .doc files since his dumbass professor demands it. Not everything revolves around a couple of applications.
that does remind me, WHY do "gamers" think they are god, wtf???
on forums and in real life they think they are SOOOOOOOOO amazing
now that i think about it they hear "you slayed the beast" and "you did it, you win you rock" all day long ugh
-
that does remind me, WHY do "gamers" think they are god, wtf???
BECAUSE THEY GOT 15 KILLS WITHOUT ONE DEATH IN UNREAL TOURNAMENT => GODLIKE!
(I can't even remember how many kills it takes for that anymore. Yey for me \o )
-
yahurd, MS office is a separate package and is in no way part of microsoft's "operating" systems.
jonez, what yahurd was saying about MS office (i think) is that, since microsoft do not publish the complete API for MS windows, their software developers (of non-OS packages) have access to priveleged information, ie: the full windows API, while third parties (Nero, Sun, Adobe etc) have only got access to the officially published part of the API. This obviously gives the developers of products like MS office the jump over products such as staroffice and openoffice.
This seems logical to me, but still, i think open source software should be able to close this gap simply by being better! :-)
-
yahurd, MS office is a separate package and is in no way part of Microsoft's "operating" systems.
jonez, what yahurd was saying about MS office (i think) is that, since microsoft do not publish the complete API for MS windows, their software developers (of non-OS packages) have access to privileged information, ie: the full windows API, while third parties (Nero, Sun, Adobe etc) have only got access to the officially published part of the API. This obviously gives the developers of products like MS office the jump over products such as staroffice and openoffice.
This seems logical to me, but still, i think open source software should be able to close this gap simply by being better! :-)
yes that is exactly what i mean, however windows 98, on a fresh install, did some weird thing and i found Microsoft office in the registry and on a not fresh upgrade from 95 to 98, the computer (which had office 95) kept getting an odd "Microsoft word cannot open because a newer version is conflicting with Microsoft word 95. please either reinstall the current version or uninstall the newer version, it is recommended you reinstall the current version as uninstalling the newer version may damage the current installation" it could have been a trial but i get paranoid about windows 98
-
No because the GPL wouldn't allow that to happen.
it has taken competitors a long while to become msoffice compatible because it was proprietary, all an office suite would have to do is open-save odfs, if it was fantastic and came from a well known source, and gained 80% marketshare in a year and then decided to make some proprietary extensions, viola lock-in
I was responding to LiquidOxygen and the only thing I corrected was that he was confusing his personal opinion for fact.
boy my face is red
Damn, I fotgot to mention the origional inspiration for the creation KDE.
you mean making Linux usable to beginners, gratis? doesn't mean they have done innovation after that amarok, for instance
full zooming
yes
window tilling
no
decent download manager.
probably not yet, but its getting better very quickly
My only point was that you found it offensive when I stated my opinion that Opera is better than Firefox. which you found obnoxious, you then stated your opinion the Windows is a piece of shit which a Windows supporter might find obnoxious.
guess i was a bit cocky
I was trying to make the point that, the motherboard manufacturers collaborate with MS; i.e. they only share their specs with them. So yes, if your motherboard doesn't support Linux then in effect it is telling you what OS to run! If your hardware was all open source then this wouldn't happen. I was making the point that many of the arguments that apply to open source software apply to hardware so if you believe that boycotting closed source software is a good decision then perhaps you should either rethink it or be more careful about your choice of hardware.
Trigger 2.6 P4 @ 1024MB, 500+ GB, Gentoo
Darkstar 450 P3 @ 192MB, ~ 2 GB, Gentoo
Leviathan 1.8T64 @ 512MB, ~ 80 GB, Gentoo
Frankystein 1.6 P4 @ 384MB, ~ 40 GB, Gentoo, LCD Failure
hes all macs too!
it's wrong, many people won't migrate to OpenOfice.org because it won't 100% reliably open up or save MS Office documents. They don't give a fuck about ODF, been able to save in a format that no one else uses makes difference to the average user. They'd rather it save in MS Office formats which is what they wrongly consider to be the standard.
true, but it has a good compatibility and for internal use, a
I was also making another point; OpenOffice.org lacks some of the features of MS Office, in this respect it is behind of Microsoft Office and is playing catch up.
fair enough but would you mind stating those features? im just curious
-
yes, i have often noticed things like MSN messenger, ms outlook, visual basic etc directories in windows. i suspect it's all part of their plan to "cheat" by sticking some of it in the OS already. after all, you can't run MS office on anything but windows, so they can put some of the code in the OS. and of course this would make it even harder to run MS office under for instance wine, i would have thought.
-
Whoooaaaaaaa!!!!
Guys, I didn't mean to start a war here....I just really like Nero, and I thought it was great that a mainstream program is being ported to Linux. Which means that Linux is finally being recognized as a viable option to Windoze.
its big news. that is the only way to react to big news and thank you as orethrius reminded me.
-
it has taken competitors a long while to become msoffice compatible because it was proprietary, all an office suite would have to do is open-save odfs, if it was fantastic and came from a well known source, and gained 80% marketshare in a year and then decided to make some proprietary extensions, viola lock-in
Why should you worry about a bit of competition?
If you believe that free software is better than proprietary software then that won't happen and if they've written a superiour product then I'm all for it. Still I can't see this happening on Linux, not with all the GNU fanboys around, for example if MS released MS Office for Linux could you seriously see it included with many distros?
probably not yet, but its getting better very quickly
Will it resume downloads that have been suspended due to a power failure or temporary disconnection?
fair enough but would you mind stating those features? im just curious
I'm sure there are many but the one I've noticed (and mentioned before in this thread) is the formula editor isn't as user friendly and it doesn't support more than one line. Apart from being a general pain in the arse, it gets worse when you need to open a Word document with formulae containing more than one line.
You also mentioned about how MS Office doesn't support ODF, well there are third party filters available and MS are actually supporting an open source project to create a filter for Word 97!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_software#Microsoft
-
Will it resume downloads that have been suspended due to a power failure or temporary disconnection?
as i said, not yet but soon
You also mentioned about how MS Office doesn't support ODF, well there are third party filters available and MS are actually supporting an open source project to create a filter for Word 97!
my point is, in the support for competiters programs, openoffice is lightyears ahead.
-
Still, aren't you surprised that Microsoft, (yes Microsoft of all people) are supporting an open source project to add ODF support to MS Word?
I suppose as OpenOffice.org's user-base grows particularly over in the far east, businesses here will need to be able to inter-operate with them so MS will eventually have no choice but to support it.
-
they already have proprietary extensions to the openxml 2003 i wouldn't expect this project to be different.
-
for example if MS released MS Office for Linux could you seriously see it included with many distros?
As if MS would allow that, haha.
Most distros have a commitment to free software, or open source software. They ship it only when they feel they really have to (e.g. Ubuntu). People are free to install non-free software on top of it if they wish, or stick to mostly-free software.
And I would think insisting on greed for an income should be an illegitimate means of making money. That's what I think.
-
i said SUPERIOR not INFERIOR google docs could clean up!
-
jonez, re: microsoft getting involved in an open source project. Not so surprising. Have you heard of the term "embrace and extend"? a good example of this is netscape 2 extensions to html. As soon as a major vendor adopts nonstandard extensions to any protocol, this creates a fork, which divides the community and can easily kill both prongs of the fork, like the BSDs in fact.
re: if MS office was available for linux, how many distros would include it. probably about as many as currently include realplayer, ie, a couple, but not many. On the other hand, you would be able to get ms office for just about every distro and everybody who wanted it would have it. Of course this won't happen, because MS can't see a way of making money on it, using existing distribution techniques. They know the bulk of linux users won't pay through the nose for microsoft office like their windoid sheep will. That's the real reason ms office isn't out on linux.